This article originally appeared in Modern English Teacher, volume 21 No.4. Thanks to Dave Francis for allowing me to reproduce it here.
Learning styles (sometimes 'learner
styles' hereafter LS) are pervasive in education and there are far too many
articles examining the learning styles of various groups of students to
reproduce here. However a quick search of Google scholar will bring up numerous
articles examining the various LS of various groups, from Iranian freshmen to
Taiwanese and Kuwaiti students. However, for the amount of attention they
receive there is very little evidence of their efficacy:
The contrast between the enormous
popularity of the learning-styles approach within education and the lack of
credible evidence for its utility is, in our opinion, striking and disturbing.
If classification of students’ learning styles has practical utility, it
remains to be demonstrated (Pasler et al 2008:117).
This essay will examine LS in the
EFL literature and question whether they actually provide a useful tool for
aiding students language learning or whether they are merely a
pseudo-scientific distraction. Firstly, This essay will examine the theory of
learning styles, focusing on the VAK model in particular. It will then examine
references to LS in a small sample of EFL literature. Finally some of the
problems with the theories of LS will be outlined.
What are learning styles?
The basic premise of LS is that 'individuals
learn in different ways'(Nel 2008:51). There is a large body of literature related to
the various types, whether they be visual, audio or, kinaesthetic, (VAK) left
brained or right brained, concrete or communicative, levelers or sharpners,
plungers or non-committers, convergers or divergers, the list, while not
endless is certainly long! The thrust of
the various theories is that if a teacher caters to a student's particular LS
then said student's learning will be enhanced. (Thornbury 2006) Therefore a teacher should prepare a variety
of approaches when introducing material in order to cater for these disparate
needs.
There does appear to be some conceptual
confusion (Nel 2008) with regard to this term. Whereas for some, LS simply
indicates the things different students prefer to do in order to learn, For example, student A may use flash cards
and student B may like writing lots of notes. For others LS indicates a
scientific theory relating to 'the biologically and developmentally imposed set
of characteristics that make the same teaching method wonderful for some and
terrible for others' (Dunn & Griggs, 1988:3). There is quite a difference
here between that which is preferential and that which is biologically
constrained. This paper will specifically deal with latter of these two
notions, though it is possible that the vagueness of the concept has actually
aided its popularity, as a wide range of activities can be grouped under one
catch-all term.
weak and strong forms
It
is useful to divide LS into two versions, for the sake of criticism. The first
can be termed the 'weak' version in which it is posited that all students learn
in different ways and while one student can find a activity enjoyable or an
explanation clear, another student can find the same activity dull and the same
explanation confusing (Pashler et al 2008:116). Also, as noted earlier,
students have their own favourite ways of learning. All of this is relatively
uncontroversial and probably quite familiar to most teachers. The 'strong'
version however moves from this position to suggesting that not only do
students learn differently, but that that difference is attributable to a
certain biological difference within each student. Furthermore this difference
can be reliably discovered through testing (often in the form of self-report
questionnaires) and that a teacher can
then target lessons to suit the students particular LS which will in turn
accelerate a student's ability to learn. In this version, LS is presented as a
complete and well defined theory. This view of learning is as problematic as it
is popular.
References to LS
The weak form can sometimes be used
as a wedge to introduce the strong form. Alternatively, criticism can be
deflected by appealing to the more general and 'common sense' ideas of the weak
form while the strong form is pushed as being a legitimate technique. An
example of this can be seen in 'the practice of English language teaching' in
which Harmer, despite noting that the claims of this theory have not 'been
subjected to any kind of rigorous scientific evaluation'(2007:93) suggests carrying out computer based tests of
students' multiple intelligences. Harmer notes that the Coffield study has
severely criticised learning styles including the following quote '[we] advise
against pedagogical intervention based solely on any of the learning style
instruments' (Coffield et al 2004:140) Yet continues to promote learning styles
claiming that they are useful for making teachers aware of 'self-evident
truths, - namely that different students react differently to different
stimulus' (2007:93). While it may be the case that learners learn differently,
it does not follow that therefore LS are the answer to this. nor is it at all
clear why teachers need to be made aware of things which are 'self evident'. The
same tact is employed elsewhere in the section:
It may sound as if, therefore, there
is no point in reading about different learner styles at all - or trying to
incorporate them into our teaching. But that is not the case. We should do as
much as we can to understand the individual differences within a group
(2007:89)
Thornbury is more damning of LS
noting that there is little evidence 'that any of these dispositions correlates
with specific learning behaviours. Nor has it been shown that preference in one
area predicts success in language learning.' (2006:116-7) Yet despite
Thornbury's caution LS are presented
uncritically in a large amount of EFL literature, or criticisms are brushed
away, as with Nel (2008) who after
acknowledging the conceptual confusion in LS and listing criticism of LS, then
goes on to suggest, similarly to Harmer, that teachers should still test their
students to find out their LS in order to 'maximise the learning opportunities
of their students'(2008:57). However, as the next section will show, even if we
accept LS as a legitimate theory, it is hard to see how it's implementation would
actually aid students learning in any way. Ellis is equally critical of the
research noting that his original conclusion of their limited worth did not
require updating for the second edition, published 14 years later. He also
apologies for the lengthy treatment of LS noting that this merely reflected the
huge amount of "attention it has received from
researchers"(2008:671-2).
There is very little credible
research to support LS (Coffield et al 2004:140). Specifically in the field of
L2 acquisition Ellis notes that there is uncertainty over whether "any
useful generalisations can be based on the research undertaken to
date"(2008:669 ) Pashler et al. (2008:116)
in relation to research on the subject which reaches an acceptable level
of credibility note that :
only
a few fragmentary and unconvincing pieces of evidence that meet this standard,
and we therefore conclude that the literature fails to provide adequate support
for applying learning-style assessments in school settings... several studies
that used appropriate research designs found evidence that contradicted the
learning-styles hypothesis
Despite this there is a very
lucrative industry built around testing and providing materials for different
learner types. Another unfortunate trend as noted is, when faced with
disappointing results, or criticism of LS, some in the EFL world seem reluctant to accept
them, possibly noting that there is not enough research yet or that the ideas
are still, on some level, useful.
It is also worth noting that what I
have mainly described (VAK) is just one version of the LS theory. Coffield et
al note that 'learning style researchers do not speak with one voice'
(2004:140) For example is a pragmatist the opposite of a theorist or a
reflector? It depends on which theory
you choose. The proliferation of theories, all lacking direct comparability and
each with their own technical terms, 'is both bewildering and off-putting to
practitioners and to other academics who do not specialise in this field.'
(Coffield 2004:136)
The feasibility problem
Another problem with LS is that
even if it were a viable theory, it is doubtful that it would be of any use to
use in the EFL field. As Harmer notes (2001:90) different intelligences mean
some learning tasks might 'not be appropriate for all of our students.' He then suggests activities which might
appeal to different types. There is something of a catch 22 here though which
seems to remove all the supposed benefits of the approach. If we imagine a
class with three learners, with LS X,Y and Z doing an activity targeted at
style X will perhaps be less than optimal for Y and Z. so any benefit of
supposed accelerated learning is instantly lost when we are inclusive. Any
benefit gleaned from knowing the student's LS would be lost. We could divide
the students up by their individual LS as we divide students up by ability now
but the cost of 'interventions built around learning styles' would be huge as
students would need to be tested, customized materials made and teacher's
retrained. (Pashler et.al 2008 116) And how would we know which version of LS
to use in the first place? Can we
ethical test students for their optimum VAK LS while ignoring their
right-brain/left brain potential? But
that's not all, some students may, according to the theory, have two LS or a
mix of all 3 (in the VAK model). You maybe for example be 30% visual and 70% kinaesthetic.
If the purpose of this knowledge is to
inform a teachers about the method of delivery it is hard to see how it is
anything but general to the point of useless. Even if LS could be proved to be
effective, the benefits would have considerable to make up for these costs. Is
it not infinitely more sensible to spend this time teaching all these students
language in as engaging a way as is possible?
Conclusion
Students have a limited amount of
time in the classroom. We um and ah over whether to schedule practice tests in
class time, whether to use a whole hour for review and whether the students are
getting enough practice time. Despite this we seem perfectly happy to throw
away lesson time on something which is untested and probably completely
useless. Pashler et al (2000:117) recommend (as Coffield et al cited earlier)
due to the problems citing in this essay, use of LS at present is an 'unwise
and a wasteful use of limited resources.'
References
Coffield
F., Moseley D., Hall, E., and Ecclestone,
K., (2004) 'Learning styles and
pedagogy in post-16 learning : a systematic and critical review' London;
Learning and Skills Network.
Ellis, R. 2008. The Study of Second Language Acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Thornbury,
S. (2006) An A to Z of ELT Oxford:
Macmillan
"Understanding that students are individuals is quite a different thing from employing specific LS tests and classroom practices." Thank you for this. The whole post was very helpful, but this sentence is what brought it home. I think perhaps what I've been mixing up is the difference between getting to know my students and understanding them as individuals, and what has been defined as learning styles. The concept of learning styles helps me know my students a bit better. When they can tell me that they retain information better when they see images versus just hearing it, I get a glimpse into my student's life and way of being.
ReplyDeleteI will be taking a new approach to this in the next training course I give thanks to your research.
Thank you,
Josette
Thanks for your reply! I'm really happy to hear it made you think about changing the way you employ LS. You might enjoy this video too.
Deletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIv9rz2NTUk
Could you give the author, Russell Mayne, credit?
ReplyDeleteAh sorry, I probably didn't make it clear that i am he.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteI was curious if you ever considered changing the page layout of your website?
ReplyDeleteIts very well written; I love what youve got to say. But maybe you could a little more
in the way of content so people could connect with it better.
Youve got an awful lot of text for only having one or 2 pictures.
Maybe you could space it out better?